The Blah Story, Volume 15 {abstract literature on the edge}

The fifteenth volume of The Blah Story by Nigel Tomm was published in 2008. Nigel Tomm safely develops abstract literature’s concept and continues his avant-garde novel The Blah Story. Probably The Blah Story is one of the best example of the abstract literature, because “abstract literature is not to communicate the details but to send messages to the reader about the idea a writer have had” [>]. As in the previous volumes, Nigel Tomm overuses the word blah and applies algorithmic literature’s methods.

When this blah was at a blah, she immediately blah herself in blah the blah which blah subject had blah from the blah. She blah up the blah in her blah, blah her blah, and applied a blah blah of black blah to the blah of her blah. The blah soon grew blah blah. Much blah was, of blah, expressed in blah to the blah blah fact of blah still blah alive.
‘I should have blah,’ observed blah, ‘that it is blah time you were blah.’
‘Why,’ replied the blah, very much blah, ‘I’m little more than blah blah old. My blah lived a blah, and was by no blah in blah blah when blah died.’
Here blah a blah series of questions and blah, by blah of which it blah evident that the blah of the blah had been blah misjudged. It blah been six blah and blah years and some blah since he had blah blah to the blah at blah.
‘But my blah,’ resumed blah, ‘had no blah to your blah at the blah of blah. I’m willing to blah, in blah, that you blah still a young blah, and my illusion was to the blah of blah which, by your blah showing, you must blah been done up in blah.’
‘In what?’ said the blah.
‘In blah blah,’ persisted blah.
‘Ah, yes; I have some blah notion of what you blah; it might be blah to answer, no blah. But in my time we blah blah any thing blah than the blah of blah.’
‘But blah what blah are blah at a loss to blah blah,’ said blah, ‘is blah it blah that, blah been blah and blah in blah two blah years blah blah, you blah here blah all blah and blah so blah well.’
‘Blah I been, as you blah, blah,’ replied blah, ‘it’s more than blah that blah, I blah still be; for I blah you blah blah yet in the blah of blah, and cannot blah with it what was a blah thing among us in the blah blah blah. But the blah is, I blah into blah, and it was blah by my best blah that I was either blah or should be blah, they blah me at blah. I blah you blah aware of the blah blah of the blah process?’
‘Why not blah blah?’